I am astounded that the general agreement from the meeting was to shy away from C & C. I understand that some felt this was too strong and might put people off.
C & C is supported by key government spokesmen in China, India and the African Group of Nations to the UN climate negotiations. It has been endorsed by most European environment ministers and the majority of MEPs. It is supported by UK Chartered Insurance Inst, UN Environment Programme Financial Initiative, UK UN Association, NGO’s, insurance comapnies. The IPCC has acknowledged it. The World Council of Churches and even the World Bank is in favour of it.
In the UK it is advocated by: The Greater London Authority; The Performance and Innovation Unit in the Cabinet Office; The Institute for Public Policy Research; the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution; [ the Tyndall Centre, ] the Government and even Tony Blair. Colin Challen MP, Chairman of the All Party Parliamentary Group on CC has introduced a C & C Bill to the commons.
The Brazilian Proposal is perhaps the fairest way to redress the damage the likes of the UK has done to everyone’s atmosphere but it is not all encompassing. C & C would go a long way to making life on the planet more equitable. And hopefully go some way to making poverty history.
I do not see why people would be frightened off. The Big Ask is all about C & C. Unfortunately the figure of 60% by 2050 is based on a CO2 concentration of 550ppm and it seems that this now needs to be reduced to 400ppm in order to prevent the 2 ºC tipping point.
We must be honest with people. I can not see how CCC can not publicly endorse C & C. We can’t compromise too much, the climate won’t.
Tell me about it...
... I was one of the people who raised the issue about C&C. As was argued, it really isn't technical, nor going to be controversial with the public, because of its equity. (The only people for whom it's a matter of controversy are the heads of nations consuming far more than their fair share of carbon, i.e. western governments!)
However, it was also argued - very reasonably - that we must ensure CCC to be a broad church, and include all strands of opinion. Thus CCC takes no stance on nuclear power, and likewise tends not to advocate specific solutions to climate change - just applying pressure for SOMETHING to be done, fast.
My objections to this would be that:
A) CCC already advocates a specific solution, that is, a binding international agreement - it has vocally opposed the Asia-Pacific Partnership set up by the USA, China, Australia etc as an alternative to Kyoto.
B) It's time to move on from talking about Kyoto alone. The Kyoto treaty is now in place - the USA's attempts to wreck it by withdrawing have failed. CCC now needs to highlight how inadequate Kyoto is and how much further we could go.
C) The best way ahead is to advocate Contraction and Convergence - drawing the developing world into negotiations whilst emphasising how the west is still more culpable, and has to reduce its emissions more rapidly and drastically.
So. It's possible CCC doesn't NEED to OFFICIALLY endorse C&C, because, as it's said, it's an umbrella group which offers space to all people concerned with climate change. Those who advocate C&C can hand out flyers at rallies, or bring along massive banners, like Aubrey Mayer of the Global Commons Institute did at the last demo. BUT, I really feel CCC should also be leading the way in educating people about cutting-edge solutions to global warming. We can be the 'radical edge' of a climate movement without scaring anyone away, by advocating radical IDEAS - and retaining our present campaigning tactics.
hehe
beat me to it!
Proposals other than C&C
Somebody at the National Planning Meeting talked vaguely about alternative proposals for C&C and it may be worth pointing to the Greenhouse Development Rights idea developed at Stanford University. Their website is http://www.ecoequity.org/ .
My initial comment would be that it is an extremely complicated proposal and that the definition for growth and development used in this scheme is controversial (given that growth in GDP is often simply growth in inequality and impoverishes millions of people).
C&C seems to me to be the most straightforward, obviously fair and workable concept which has a good support base. I would, however, add that C&C must incorporate the need to protect and restore key ecosystems if it is to give us any hope of stabilising the atmosphere. I think this could be done.
Nonetheless, it is worth to be aware of the Stanford proposals because they are being discussed as an 'alternative' to C&C.
Almuth Ernsting
C&C radical?!
Yes, if you think the Lib Dems and the Institution of Civil Engineers are. See:
http://libdem-reconnect.org.uk/pages/policydetails.html
and
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200405/cmselect/cmenvaud/105/...
You can't get much more mainstream than the Institution of Civil Engineers. We (didn't I say I was a member?) build the motorways, airports, oil refineries, etc, remember.
Tell you what would be radical and truly equitable: skip the convergence part of C&C and go straight to equal per capita shares!
C&C is already a comprimise but is the only one with a hope of getting universal support.
andy
Stay focussed
It's not a question of being controversial or not. I happen to think that C&C is probably the most equitable way of sharing out the world's carbon emissions. That's not the point. Have we all forgotten the thousands of people who marched with us all over the world on Dec 3rd? I doubt if many of them would have heard of C&C. Imagine how less effective our call to action would have been if we: (a) had to explain to everybody what C&C is; and (b) told everybody around world the they had to sign up to C&C as well.
I am all for people advocating C&C as a means - that's why we've created the spaces where we can debate these issues, but it can't be the message we send out to the millions of people in Britain, and all over the world. The more we try to load our campaign with these extra issues the less effective we become as a campaigning organisation with a simple message.
The central tenet of our campaign was, and is, that we believe in binding international agreements based on scientific evidence. I would personally add the rider that these targets should be set for each year (a limitation of the Kyoto Protocol). I also happen to believe that the surest way to limit CO2 emissions would be by radically changing the global capitalist economy. But I'm not expecting the Campaign or the people who march with me to take up that position. And not only that, I also happen to believe that the science on which the Kyoto Protocol is based is out of date - but that's another argument.
As for the Asia Pacific Partnership, the Campaign was right to oppose it, as it is a scheme devised by the Bush administration to undermine Kyoto in order to get out of binding international targets; that simply offers technology and the market as a panacea.
And as for the US signing Kyoto when Bush leaves office - that's probably true, but that isn't until 2009. By that time our campaign and the global situation will probably (I hope) be a lot different. There's no harm in thinking ahead though.
CCC and C & C
If you agree that C & C is about equity, then that really is the point. If we are not campaigning for a fairer world, then what?
You say the central tenet of our campaign was, and is, that we believe in binding international agreements based on scientific evidence. Kyoto was and is a failure. It needed to be somewhere in the region of 70% instead of 5%. It does not include the developing countries. The developing countries would sign up to C & C. C& C would be a binding international agreement.
If CCC can oppose the Asian sham then why can we not support C & C? There seems to be an inherent contradiction in CCC’s position on the above points.
I was under the impression that we campaigned against climate change. Kyoto will not achieve this therefore we must campaign for something that will. No one can stop the climate changing. It’s too late for that. C& C would minimize it’s affects at a level that would not cause chaos (2 C).
If the people who marched on Dec 3rd had not heard of C & C, thanks to Caroline Lucas’ speech they now will have. That’s 10,000 campaigners. If all marchers had been told, that would be 100,000. Why would our call to action have been any less effective if we had to explain C & C? (which I hadn’t suggested, but we shouldn’t miss a trick). It could be done in a sentence on the next flyer. Telling people to do something can be counter productive but that does not mean that you cannot provide a convincing argument that people could embrace. I was suggesting that CCC should sign up to it.
I strongly recommend that it is a message that we send out not to millions of people but to the 6 billion people who have a right to know that they have the same right to the atmosphere as the West who have contributed 80% of the damage. It is our duty and the only real chance the world has. That is a very simple and stark message.
If CCC is failing to highlight C & C then it doesn’t bode well. If campaigning organisations don’t campaign on C & C I can’t see where the impetus is going to come from. It is a subject the media don’t want to cover either. Media lens have looked at a five year period up to Feb 2005 at the output of 5 environmental reporters for the broadsheets (Including Independent & IOS). Between them they mentioned C & C and equity 4 times. In contrast industry was discussed 402 times in a largely uncritical way. There seems to be a conspiracy of silence. Remember the government has agreed to it but won’t set targets to achieve it or form a cross party consensus to assist it. Shouldn’t we be holding the government accountable for this failure? How are the public supposed to be informed if no one is talking about C & C?
CCC and C & C
As I said, the Campaign creates the spaces were C & C can be raised. Infact, I would argue that our campaign has done more to raise awareness of C & C, without even mentioning it, than any other group! We have our work cut building a campaign and awareness of the need to take action. We can leave the details to people like Caroline Lucas or Mark Lynus to cover.
However inadequate Kyoto is, it is the only binding international treaty there is. Also, by criticising Kyoto you run the danger of letting the real villain, the Bush administration, off the hook.
Remember C&C is a means to an end, not an end in itself. C & C is predicated on their being an international agreement to cut, or limit, CO2 emissions in the first place; without one it makes no sense.
CCC: Resistance vs. Advocacy
I personally support C&C as an effective equitable global framework for tackling climate change. Others at the meeting didn't, but for unspecified reasons (correct me if I'm wrong here). I actually never imagined C&C would be so controversial.
Phil characterised the history of CCC as a protest movement, the "attack dogs" against people in power blocking climate treaties. He suggested that this was the main function of CCC and not to advocate policy, but that this would naturally follow in the wake of forceful protest. I think this strategy has worked well in the past, especially when Bush was the pre-eminent obstacle to progress. But going forward, as Bush disappears and with Kyoto clearly inadequate, there is a danger the campaign will lose momentum if it continues to focus entirely on these now.
The key point is that this campaign must try to change the status-quo, rather than simply being a resistance movement (such as Stop the War). To achieve that I think that we need to positively support radical policy to tackle CC (such as C&C) as well as attacking clearly misguided policies (aviation etc.) and the politicians who espouse them.
Many of these points were raised at the meeting, and I have a feeling that this will come up again at the National Assembly.
"Suggested" actions are the key
The following originally appeared in my comment on Ian's blog in its original location:
Contraction and Convergence is a useful tool for estimating what national emissions path a country should be aiming for. That doesn’t mean you have to believe it should determine the emissions paths under a future international agreement, although they’re unlikely to be far off it if it is going to be a competent agreement.
However, CCC can still SUGGEST to its members actions which have broad support. E.g. getting signatures for the Big Ask. At least I think that’s less contentious than C&C but a vote would be interesting!
Remember that CCC is unusual in that it is currently a standalone demonstration group, whereas demonstrations tend to be most worthwhile as a rallying exercise for organizations that arrange more persuasive actions e.g. letter-writing, public speaking, hustings, boycotts.
CCC does link to the Stop Esso campaign, but has several times rejected even suggesting other persuasive actions to its members, which almost defeats the object of doing demos.
To want Bush to sign Kyoto however IS contentious policy, though it took me a while to realise this. Greenpeace disagreed and only supported the D3 demos that didn’t have this message. The Sierra Coalition in North America had the message ‘Don’t wait for the US government – take action’. That was far less contentious and Greenpeace supported it.
If CCC wants to be a unifying, effective umbrella for a range of protesters then it would do well to choose topical Suggested messages following Montreal.
3% annual UK cuts inadequate says Aubrey Meyer
From Contraction and Convergence website
www.gci.org.uk > NEWS SITE >
MP support for C&C EDM Please Aubrey Meyer 02/28/06
"The proposal to avert 'climate-chaos' by having the UK cuts its
emissions locally by 3% a year is, like the Kyoto Protocol, wholly
inadequate.
"To stabilise the rising concentration of greenhouse gas in the
atmosphere a global full-term contraction of emissions and the
international convergence to equal per capita shares of this is needed in short order.
"This Contraction and Convergence - or C&C - is the 'rational
science-based unity' called for by the Prime Minister, is the basis of the cross-party unity in parliament supported by most political parties in the UK and has significant international support.
"As the Independent has taken to telling the truth about the climate
problem, let us now establish reconciliation with this C&C answer as
soon as possible."
Aubrey Meyer
GCI
Let's Talk About...Contraction & Convergence
It's really not hard to understand that we must get a firm, legal, international agreement to put a lid on fossil fuels.
We can argue about which concentration of Carbon Dioxide in the atmosphere is safe, whether Kyoto is a fudge, whether Kyoto will ever be successful considering two of its planks (Carbon Trading and the Clean Development Mechanism) are rotten to the core.
We can fight and gripe about the Big Ask not going far enough or low enough, and we can moan that Stop Climate Chaos is yet another compromise, too slow and not asking enough.
We can pull out our hair about the greenwash from large corporations and the Conservative Party, who are relying on voluntary, unmeasured changes to make a difference (snowball's chance in hell, as much use as a chocolate teapot etc)
What we really should not argue about is the basic framework of Contraction and Convergence.
Forget for a moment the lace and trim and flowery bows of the prospect of redistributing wealth from rich nations to poor that C&C promises. Put to one side just now the bitter disputes about a safe level of Greenhouse Gases in the atmosphere. Ignore the very noble and ethical demands of paying for our historical Carbon Guilt. Try to believe that the United Nations can one day be united in signing up to a global cap on Carbon Dioxide emissions, and that the individual nations can and will use all their powers to set the Carbon Budgets in stone - in firm and enforceable laws and regulations - even though you don't see much in the way of evidence for this yet.
The ideas underpinning Contraction and Convergence are very plain and simple - in order to stabilise the gas concentrations in the atmosphere and prevent runaway Global Warming and Climate Chaos - we must Contract the Carbon Economy through international agreement - and take the easiest and fairest route to the safe concentration levels by agreeing fair shares for all - Convergence to equity of emissions rights.
This is the only form of agreement that stands any chance of being accepted at the international level.
And in fact, it has been. C&C is sought as the baseline policy by a mighty mass of nations and organisations. It seems to me that it would be silly for the Campaign against Climate Change to dismiss it.
Below is a simple language summary of the main thrust of C&C. If you like it, and you agree with it, please e-mail me and let me know. If I get more than 40 replies, I will seek a formal CCC meeting with the Global Commons Institute to see if we can seek common ground with Aubrey Meyer over Contraction & Convergence, and adopt it officially for the campaign. Your call, people.
+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=
Climate Justice : Contraction and Convergence
It is now clear to scientists and weather people that unusual Climate Change is taking place across the world.
This is due to Global Warming, which happens because of the build up of Greenhouse Gases in the air above us.
The principal problem is the Carbon Dioxide gas that comes off when we burn fossil fuels for energy and transport.
The Earth's natural sponges that soak up Carbon Dioxide, the forests and the oceans, have become full to bursting,
and we are reaching a tipping point where the planet cannot level out temperatures, rainfall, ocean and wind flows.
The burning of fossil fuels, coal, petroleum oil and natural gas, give the human race lots of energy to use for trade
and industry. They have been used to make great wealth from natural resources, but clearly, there are limits to the
growth of riches. We rely on the power of fossil fuels, but this way of doing business is spoiling and destroying
the natural resources that keep us all going. Climate Change is having an effect on fresh water resources, plant and
animal populations, buildings, roads, railways, sea ways and weather. Some parts of the world are becoming
impossible to live in, and harvests in every country are poor.
The science is showing us that Climate Change is becoming dangerous to all living beings, and of course this will
make trade and all types of business difficult, from farming to making electricity. The solution to these money and
natural environment problems is to stop using so much fossil fuel, to cut down our use of energy, and use clean
energy instead. To protect our Climate, and life on Earth, we need to level off the amount of Carbon Dioxide in the
air blanket around the world, and to do that we need to go on a fossil fuel diet, a Carbon Budget. The sums have
been done, and it is possible to cut down our need for fossil fuels, if our leaders want it. This is called Contraction.
The international discussions on Climate Change, held by the United Nations organisation, have settled on a first
stage agreement known as the Kyoto Protocol, in which it was decided to put in place a number of rules to control
the use of fossil fuel. Certain countries, such as the United States of America and Australia have said they will not
join in, because it sounds too expensive, but even so, work has already started to get the rules working, although
they are not yet tough enough.
One of the key points of the agreement is the idea of Equity, or fair shares. It is a good idea that countries with industry,
which have used the most fossil fuel, should be responsible for most of the work to cut down the use of fossil fuel.
Some rich countries have been given Carbon Targets to cut down their use of fossil fuels, but those countries who are
still getting going with industry are not forced to make any changes. Going further with the idea of Equity, or equal
responsibility, it can be seen that in the end we will have to ask all the countries to join the work to stop the use of
fossil fuels, and so each country will have its own Carbon Budget.
The most fair way to set Carbon Targets, and the way most people agree about, is a count of the population, a
"Per Capita" Carbon Budget, for each person, for each country. The easiest way to get this is a scheme to slowly
bring down the Carbon Budget for each country which gives off too much, until each country has the same rights to
give off Carbon Dioxide, according to the number of people they have in their country. At the end of this scheme, the
Carbon Dioxide will be at a lower level that the Earth can cope with, without having a disaster. This scheme to
bring all the countries down to the right level is called Convergence.
So there it is : Contraction and Convergence. This is what we need to stop Climate Change getting any worse.
Even if we stopped giving off Carbon Dioxide into the air tomorrow, we would still have to change to cope with
big problems with the Climate, because of a time lag since the rich countries started to use dirty energy. What is
important is to start Contraction and Convergence as soon as possible.
It is a scheme that makes sense, and is fair, and leads to many practical and positive results. Working out the
answer to Climate Change with Contraction and Convergence can rescue the world's business. Climate Justice
will lead to new forms of successful trade and industry, and protect the natural wealth of the planet at the same time.
Play your part : there is a large amount of information about how to reduce the Carbon Dioxide you give off.
Cut down your own Carbon Dioxide, and tell others you are doing it. Write to your local and national government
to ask them to support Climate Change laws and regulations, and explain that you are taking action yourself.
Teach your nearest and dearest about Climate Change and Contraction and Convergence.
Deforestation and carbon sink destruction
I completely agree with the basic principle of C&C, and it is infintely better than the Kyoto approach or just about anything else that has been proposed.
Unfortunately, I still have some questions about C&C - perhaps somebody else can assure me that they have been answered already. I very much go by Mayer Hillman's book, which I really like and have recommended to people, but which pretty much avoids the deforestation and carbon sink destruction issue. Maybe there are other documents which deal with this better?
The papers on C&C which I have read very much focus on fossil fuel emisions, although there is a statement that deforestation emissions must be included, too. Of course, that's up to 75% of all human CO2 emissions. But if we need to reduce total emissions by perhaps 90% then it's not enough to reduce just 75% by 90%!
The 2001 IPCC report suggested that tropical deforestation up to 2100 will lead to emissions of 85-130 billion tons of carbon. Additionally, Indoonesia's peat holds up to 50 billion tons of carbon, and one third of it has been so damaged that it is likely to go into the atmosphere over the next 40 years (with more of it being damaged all of the time). Those figures don't include the worst-case, but very likely scenario of logging together with warming leading to an Amazon die-back.
That's a vast amount of carbon coming from deforestation and peatland destruction! Unless deforestation is stopped and serious money is spent on restoring some of the main carbon sinks (which, in Indonesia, would be quite possible), our chances of avoiding catastrophic warming are close to zero.
If emissions from deforestation are taken into account then some very poor countries appear as top-polluters. Looking at fossil fuels only, rich countries are generally the largest polluters and need to shoulder the greatest burden for reducing global emissions. Looking at all emissions, however, the picture is not that simple. What implications does it have for equity if a poor country like Indonesia is responsible for more greenhoue gas emissions than any rich nation other than the US?
Moreover, when it comes to fossil fuel burning and deforestation then the answer is quite simply to do a lot less of it. When you look at Indonesia's peat fires, however, it's not just a matter of doing less damage in future. It's a matter of spending quite large sums of money (don't know how much) on restoring those massive carbon sinks that were devastated in the 1990s. I don't know if or how this is being addressed by the C&C model.
It seems absolutely essential that C&C leads to massive reductions in fossil fuel and deforestation emissions as well as the restoration of key ecosystems which are essential to the carbon cycle, and that the equity principle which Aubrey Meyer puts so well is preserved.
Interestingly, there is now an excellent proposal for addressing deforestation and peat fires under the Kyoto Agreement the 'compensated reductions' approach developed by Brazilian NGOs and put forward by the Coalition of Rainforest Nations (not the so-called 'Brazil proposal' which is a weak and unconvincing 'alternative' to C&C). Could it be adapted and fitted into C&C? Has anybody tried to put the two together, yet?
Do others know whether there is a clear position on this, or is this something that might need to be discussed and developed further?
I completely agree with Jo, though, that we should formally support C&C - since I am not aware of any credible alternative!
Almuth Ernsting
Climate Change (Contraction and Convergence) Bill
I just wanted to point up the upcoming 2nd reading of Colin Challen's C&C Bill, on 14th July. You can read more on the Bills page: http://portal.campaigncc.org/?q=bills
This is a great opportunity for as many people as possible to get behind C&C and raise its profile with MPs and the public. I shall certainly be writing to my MP.
I also add my voice to the chorus calling on CCC to advocate C&C, as the only fair and rational basis for international agreement on climate change - which, after all is what CCC is all about. If you agree that there should be a cap on global emissions, and that remaining emissions should be distributed fairly, then you support C&C. It is really quite a simple concept - cap and share. The idea of sharing out limited resources fairly is a basic moral tenet that most people are familiar with, so I don't think it should be removed from campaigning on the grounds of complexity. In order to make the idea accessible all we have to do is use simpler language.
I too support this bill and CaCC support of C&C
1. I support C&C personally and i add my name to the list jo is after. I hope everyone vocing support here has done so by email.
2. I was at a meeting held by Colin Challen and Aubrey Meyer at parliment the other day; more info on my blog.
http://climatechangeaction.blogspot.com
C&C more complex and less important than Exxon?
We have traditionally featured Exxon large in images and arguements as the biggest Oil lobbyists and obfuscators. This is difficult to explain to newcomers as a central plank in our platform and to make slogans out of. Contraction and Convergence (which like Climate Chaos should always be written and quoted in full) needs to be mentioned and explained and advocated at every opportunity until it is common currency that is known by all and can be agreed and argued and voted for by the electorate. This is happening with CC and GW. I no longer have to explain what is happening. But the urgency and how much needs doing is still widely unknown, even by people like David Attenborough it seems. Contraction and Convergence is intellectually robust, just, widely supported especially among the developing countries. Aubrey Meyer's graphs on his model are useful to relate causes to warming. And to show the path out. All sorts of sources of greenhouse gases can be factored in, caps can be set and annual reduction targets can be calculated from them. It is a framework for a global agreement which we desperately need and are fighting for. It is based on the principle of justice and 'enough, soon enough' both of which are vital. If the world were asking for the next stage beyond Kyoto now then maybe the talks would not fall every time at that hurdle. This will not happen until we are shouting for the next stage. The only viable model is C&C and we must help to put it into everyone's brain and mouth before it is too late.
I say we should adopt it as policy and mention it on all our literature.
C&C does not say how we are going to achieve these reductions (4%pa minimum in the UK on present figures and CC figures only ever get worse). But that is not its job. The downward curves of the necessary reductions are frightening and will put some off at first. But while they are in the realm of the unknown they will never be advocated let alone achieved. The graphs can also be used to show people what will happen if business continues as usual or we achieve 'not enough, not soon enough'. There is a climate change cliff out there and if we don't turn the corner fast enough we are over it and dead. At the moment we are turning towards it whilst talking about it.
Talking about Contraction and Convergence might just make it acceptable soon enough.
Duncan
CCC Advocating C & C
I couldn't agree more. We must talk about it until people understand, embrace the idea, and then go on to sell it themselves. I was at a local Climate Change event yesterday leafleting and I mentioned C & C to someone who was concerned about equity and justice and as an old leftie was looking for a solution, but to my surprise she hadn't heard of C & C. When I explained it to her she thought it made perfect sense. I tried to bring it up during the event but didn't get a chance as someone had already asked the Speaker to explain how the world can cope with China and India wanting the same as we do. The questioner's stance seemed to be that he would accept a reduction in living standards but needed advice. The Speaker - Dave Reay - Climate Scientist and author of 'Climate Change Begins at Home' - didn't mention C & C.
In another event at the Cheltenham Science Festival, a Sky weather presenter and a Climatologist, said they had no answer other than lifestyle changes when someone asked a similar question about equity. This is both surprising and unacceptable.
The political parties are absolutely not talking about it, although you might find the two words hidden in their Manifestos. The liberal broadsheets, including the Indie, do not talk about it. TV commentators do not talk about it. And if Campaign Groups don't feel the need to talk about it then how will every citizen on the planet know they have an equal right to the atmosphere?
We must put it on the CCC web-site and in the literature.
Ian
CCC Advocating C & C
I absolutely agree. I think we should actively support C&C. I think its by far the best and most practical solution to climate change that we have right now and we need governments to come out in support of it ASAP.
Fair enough, we don't want to be seen to not support Kyoto. But we all know that Kyoto isn't going to solve the problem, merely postpone it. So while it's completely unacceptable for countries like the US and Australia not to ratify the treaty, and we should continue to pressure them to do so, we should be looking at pressuring them further into signing up for C&C.
If people hear wonderful things about the government sticking to its Kyoto agreement etc, they may rest easy. I feel we need to make as much noise about C&C as possible. Let the whole world know that there could be a solution. This is it, and this is what we have to do. And do it now!!
We need action.
Not actively supporting C&Cbecause it might undermine Kyoto is ludicrous in my opnion. Kyoto is not going to solve Climate Change, which is after all, what we are here to do.
quite agree
And of course Kyoto will run out by 2012. Parties agreed last December to discuss a blue-print for a new agreement over the next two years. After that, we'll either have something else based on promises and 'political realities' like now (if that), or contraction and convergence, the only model which could conceivably work, as far as I can see. That leaves little time to create a consensus for the one agreement with a chance of working. All the more reason to start and gather the support now!
Don't quite agree
I'm afraid I have to disagree with most of the posts on this as I feel that formally supporting C&C would be a big mistake.
This isn't about the merits of C&C itself, but about keeping the Campaign together and as broad as possible. As has been said, most of the people on the demo would not have known what C&C is, and to be honest although several of the speakers mentioned it I'm sure that most people on this year's demo will similarly not know very much about it. And if that is true for the people who were committed enough to come on the demo, what about everyone else? C&C is not a big issue for the public generally, so I question how taking a formal position on it would actually help us building the movement. Are there really lots of people out there saying, 'I would come on the CCC demonstration, if only they'd come out in support of C&C'? I doubt it.
When you take a position, you always run the risk that you will alienate the people in the group who don't support it. Not everyone in CCC agrees that C&C is the best and only way forward, nor do all the groups whose activists are part of CCC have a position supporting it. A decision to give formal support to C&C risks driving activists away for, to be honest, very little advantage that I can see.
If we aren't taking a position on nuclear power because of the different opinions on it, when this is a big issue in the media generally and people outside the green movement have strong opinions about it, I don't see that there can be any justification for taking a position on C&C.
Not quite with you
This is about C & C and not about keeping the campaign together. SCC is where you go for 'broad campaigning' and weakness and no action at all as far as I can see. If the people on the demo hadn't heard of C&C, as I said they do now. If most of the people on this year's demo do not know very much about it, then they should or they need to be told again... and again until they know quite a lot about it. Those who don't come on the demo need to be told. It needs to be a big issue for the general public, so I would suggest that our taking a formal position would actually help us to build a movement. At least we would be telling people about, a voice in the wilderness. We would be making a stand.
If, as you suggest (and I agree) that very few people are aware of C & C I am pretty sure that there are not lots of people out there saying, 'I would come on the CCC demonstration, if only they'd come out in support of C&C'? If anyone! I am also pretty sure that these same people wouldn't say: 'I would come on the CCC demonstration, if only they'd not come out in support of C&C'? or, 'I would not come on the CCC demonstration, if they came out in support of C&C'?
I would hope that they would demonstrate against climate change beacuse they wanted to avert a global disaster of rather too imaginable consequences. C&C and habitat protection (and all the social, political and economic changes that go with it) are about it. The world either embraces that rather quickly or we're stuffed. Or as a protest movement we can carry on discussing things like politicians do. Time is running out to fear alienating people with the truth.
Contraction and Convergence: Just Right?
To borrow from Aubrey Meyers' way of explaining the model...
1. C&C is primarily about the integrity of emissions cuts, it is about contraction of emissions, a shrinking global cap.
This may be through of as Green.
2. C&C is secondarily about equity, it is about converging towards equal global emissions rights.
This may be thought of as Red; everyone has an equal right to use the global commons of the atmosphere.
3. C&C is finally about trade within these strictures; a globally adequate response within a rights based framework is given flexibility.
This may be thought of as Blue.
Two initial remarks about this: A; Some Neo-liberals think it is communist B; Some socialists think it equates to a right to pollute. Perhaps some will disagree with me but I do not see this as a system that is well suited to the typical Left/Right arguments, I try not to be ideological in looking at climate mitigation strategies as we don't have time for such considerations.
Has anyone got an alternative framework to propose? There are few with the widespread creadibility of C&C. If the argument about a right to pollute is meant in defense of those without the right then we mean Africa, perhaps the continent with the strongest support for C&C.
Frankly the inability for a campaign group to get behind C&C is embarrassing. CCC should be able to do this if SCC can't; are we a talking shop? This inertia, this paralysis seems to be a microcosm of the international scene so the next time anyone shouts down limited progress or unresponsiveness look closer to home first.
C&C - Not radical - it is to create the future we campaign for
As noted earlier in this discussion the Institution of Civil Engineers is backing C&C - it was declared as the way forward in the institution's annual Brunel lecture last week. This suggests that the new leaders of development, following in the footprints of Brunel in the past could be 'Josie and her team' leading sustainability to deal with climate change and poverty together - from Africa. If you want to read how radical the views are of the old stream - put across by the guy who will be the President in the 2009-2010 then go to http://www.ice.org.uk/downloads//Brunel%202006%20section%201.pdf.
If an august institution stuffed full of concrete and steel manufacturers and road builders can back C&C then why not a nimble grassroots activist network campaigning against climate change? There is already a network of the organisations that do not support C&C called Stop Climate Chaos - held back by the views of the old-firm environmental NGOs not the development NGOs (who see the value of equity in global agreements).
Why not declare that we are indeed more progressive than Stop Climate Chaos and help lead the way in the vision for a climate-proof future from the grassroots?
The only perhaps radical thing about C&C is the name - surely chosen so that 'it does what it says on the tin' - and requires an explanation - rather than a word like sustainability rather is defined and rebranded at will.
The only confusion with C&C is that it is a framework within which market solutions, socialist principles, ethical values can sit - not a market-based framework, but a decision-making framework, a visioning framework. Let us help strengthen the case for it, at all levels.
C&C simply states that in dealing with environmental limits (climate change) we need to deal with equality in quality of life (poverty) at the same time. That rights and limits are related. That in taking responsibility in giving up our propensity to consume and pollute without limits we have to start to value and respect what is around us. This relates to the basic premis of all mainstream spiritual movements from Buddhism and New Age to Christianity and Islam, the basic rule of law from local to international level, and even the way that ecosystems function in nature. I am not sure how humanity can agree to value the planet without first valuing humanity, today and for future generations.
Thus C&C is not just some clever framework to make political agreement on climate change at last possible, it is commonsense at the most fundamental level. It is the way nature works. It is a simple framework for visioning for a sustainable future - we need equity (no poverty, war or resource security) and ecological limits (to resource use and pollution, including climate change) at the same time.
If we do the ecological without the equity we confront the climate challenge with hostility and fear rather than cooperation and responsibility, as noted in the opening workshop in the Old Theatre at LSE. Bring on C&C. Make CCC declare not just that it will campaign now, but that Another Future IS Possible...
...
"If an august institution stuffed full of concrete and steel manufacturers and road builders can back C&C then why not a nimble grassroots activist network campaigning against climate change?"
Why indeed? Because, unfortunately, campaigning organisations often tend to be about hitting the problem, not positing a solution. I sincerely hope CCC can be different. We need to move the debate on, and if C&C is really sooo controversial, and not the correct answer, then fine: people can leave and form new and other more radical / conservative / creative organisations. Or, more preferably, continue to belong and have a debate within CCC. But the fact is that CCC is no longer the only umbrella organisation on climate change out there. Stop Climate Chaos performs that role. CCC ought to be more radical, in the sense of the solutions it proposes - whilst continuing to provide a platform for moderate, lawful protest.
If people disagree with C&C, fine. Let's have a debate. But I'd rather the whole UK had this debate than a few of us activists. If CCC needs to endorse that model to get some wider debate flowing, then we should go for it. Adopting a framework such as C&C is a sign of a more mature organisation. We're no longer just highlighting the issue, playing the blame game (although alas, that'll probably continue). Forum for the Future, E3G, GCI - these are models of good practice, as they all advocate practical ways forward, as well as applying pressure to change.
democracy is slow...
i really understand where guy is coming from.
like him i'm eager to see the campaign against climate change develop a policy framework as "a sign of a more mature organisation".
a protest movement, "hitting the problem", although it can be very effective at focussing the issue in the mind of the public and government, needs to develop foundations in theory and debate, in order to remain effective and to get into the lifeblood of society, making longlasting change.
stop climate chaos and the campaign against climate change are very different animals. SCC is an artificial construct that is designed to be the umbrella for various organisations to join forces. SCC also has a remit that is very strongly aligned to current authority structures, and the staff of SCC have close links with the political set.
CCC on the other hand is on the feral (wild child) side of social movement. we don't wear suits and ties. we don't toady or cosy up to or schmooze the political set. we identify with all the strong resistance movements and organisations. as a consequence, we are frequently dismissed, marginalised or scorned.
we are still at the stage of running around waving our arms wildly on the deck on the titanic shouting "the boat's going down ! the boat's going down !" we have got to continue to shout and scream, but we also have to tap into social veins and arteries that allow us to make more impact.
one of those ways of consolidating and solidifying the movement will be to debate contraction and convergence. we could also look at the pros and cons of all the possible future national energy scenarios, to turn from protest about fossil fuels to the promotion of renewable energy technologies, to hold training courses in all the major climate change theories and disciplines (like a continuation of the 3rd june 2006 climate conference).
there are many sectors of the green movement - many of which are deeply and rightfully suspicious of each other. in the past, psychological weapons have been thrown around, and greens can be just as dismissive of people on a parallel green track, as ordinary tabloid newspaper readers can be dismissive of anyone who is an environmentalist.
there are greens who have sold out to corporate salesmanship and who now sound like american airhead suits. there are greens who have sold out to working for the various government agencies that dilute and dissipate their energy and resolve. there are greens who have given up and become dependent on the kindness of medical assistance. there are greens who have drifted off with the fairies and who always talk in fantasy terms about connectedness. the list goes on.
we will not be able to engender good practice in CCC without a lot of hard work, correcting all the bad green behaviour of the past. we will not be able to have C&C adopted as central policy without a lot of legwork to overcome the entrenched mistrust that sits in the hearts of burned-out disillusionists. we have to have full participation, democratic processes, clear task management and project work before we can say the organisation of CCC is working correctly.
what is important is to remain a member of CCC, and to give it enough time and commitment and energy to try to achieve the goal of helping the organisation to mature.
i want to stimulate the debate about contraction and convergence because i believe it is a baseline, sine qua non, absolute necessity for international climate negotiations. plenty of other people believe that too. i will be continuing to push the point as i feel we need to discuss it for possible adoption by CCC, just like guy and the 10 others who have signalled their support so far.
true democracy takes time, and we have to give it the time, and give C&C the space to grow on people.
let's keep discussing it here. even if CCC is not able to formulate a code of good practice, we ourselves can continue to act in the right way.
back to basics : the burning of fossil fuels is creating an overload of carbon dioxide in the earth's air blanket. we need to stop burning fossil fuels and find non-carbon forms of energy, including cutting energy demand, increasing energy efficiency and by massive investment in renewable energy technologies. there must be a legal and binding cap on global carbon dioxide emissions, and we must reduce this cap over a calculated period of years. we must adopt the idea of equal shares and aim for an international personal carbon ration. this is contraction and convergence. any questions ? any differences of opinion ?
but what is the benefit to the campaign
Almuth has raised concerns about countries that are destroying their carbon sinks and everyone has just ignored them.
There may be support for Contraction and Convergence from activists in the UK but is there really global support for C & C, in particular, from those countries we hope to bring on board on Nov 4th? If I was a Russian living in Moscow, enduring very cold winters, I cannot see any reason why I would think it would be equitable for someone in London to be entitled to burn the same amount of fuel while also being kept warm by the Gulf stream.
CCC is not a traditional campaign group, it does no research, occasionally talks to journalists, rarely issues press releases and it does not attempt to promote specific policies to policy makers. A campaign has to offer solutions, it does not have to offer the solution. Even if we adopted C&C as the solution, it is not clear how that would move the climate campaign forward as John S and Elaine said. But as Guy said in his first post in February, we can and should educate people about C & C in our literature and on our web site. Ian said we should 'highlight' C & C, that's fine as well. Guy said in his later post that we need to propose radical solutions. I don't think C&C is a radical solution but I do think it is hard to propose radical solutions while trying to create a mass movement?
contraction and convergence replies...
some of the points that john a has made have been answered in an e-mail from aubrey meyer of the global commons institute, the proponent of contraction and convergence (C&C). i will relay them, although i didn't author them...maybe i should invite him to join the forum and write his replies directly - making him a member of the campaign against climate change would be cool...
read below for the missive (and a mighty missive it is too) :-
1. John A : Point (A)
"There may be support for Contraction and Convergence from activists in the UK but is there really global support for C & C, in particular, from those countries we hope to bring on board on Nov 4th?â€
There are two issues here: -
[1] what is needed to avoid dangerous rates of climate change
[2] support for this.
WHAT IS NEEDED TO AVOID DANGEROUS RATES OF CLIMATE CHANGE?
The answer to the first point is achieve the ‘ultimate [means both eventual but also fundamental] objective’ of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC).
It is stopping the rise of atmospheric ghg [Greenhouse Gases] concentration as soon as possible, at a value is: -
[a] ‘stable’ which means it has stopped rising, and
[b] ‘safe’ which means a value not much higher than which we have already caused.
We are caught in three huge dimensions of difficulty: -
[a] the higher the concentration level goes, the less likely it is that the rise can be halted at all, let alone a value that is ‘safe’.
[b] the rising concentration of ghg [Greenhouse Gases] in the atmosphere is a result of emissions ‘accumulating’ over time. Consequently, just to stabilise concentrations requires a deep full-term cut in emissions globally, in the order of 80%: - this is ‘contraction’, the full-term cut in its entirety.
[c] the massive and dysfunctional structural moment of [economic] 'growth' [see http://www.gci.org.uk/briefings/ICE.pdf]
It is best to regard this contraction as ‘full-term’ i.e. ‘as long or as short as it takes to stabilise ghg concentration. Full-term fuses notions of short, medium or even long-term and allows for the realisation that we may have much less time to achieve stabilisation than we have been led to believe.
Allowing for the past 200 years of accumulating emissions, we are already deep into the full-term of emissions as a whole and because of the dangers we face, contraction may have to be shorter than we think.
WHAT GLOBAL SUPPORT IS THERE FOR C&C?
The short answer is at this link from 2001: -
http://www.gci.org.uk/Endorsements/UNEPFI5f.pdf
There is more here: -
http://www.gci.org.uk/links/detail.pdf
2. John A : Point (B)
“If I was a Russian living in Moscow, enduring very cold winters, I cannot see any reason why I would think it would be equitable for someone in London to be entitled to burn the same amount of fuel while also being kept warm by the Gulf stream."
C&C may be ‘heroic’ but it is about global ‘survival’ before it is about local ‘equity’. Equity without survival is meaningless.
So the hypothetical equity argument posed here between citizens of Russian and the UK has endless equivalent comparisons of ‘in-equivalence’ around the planet all of which divorce the negotiating process from the survival imperative – safe and stable atmospheric ghg concentrations.
We could [and should] really more meaningfully ask how central Africans feel about worsening drought, famine and death this year [and counting] due to the failure to stop the emissions raising the ghg concentrations and causing dangerous climate change.
Convergence is an inevitable function of contraction. Convergence to equal per capita sharing is 'stable in a way that nothing else is. It a mechanism at the headline of the argument for counting people and carbon - un-confused by 'money' - that makes the negotiation constitutional and, with contraction, still goal-focused.
This is not random. The 'evolutionary' only make-it-us-as-you-go-along model with which Kyoto mimics ‘evolution’ at its worst. Is this model is the fittest, it proves we are collectively unfit to survive.
The real difficulty with the 'evolutionary' model is that we are theoretically avoiding emitted tonnes in millions while accumulating tonnes in billions and preparing for round two of doing this. Already many people are tempted into arguing why bother?
In a nutshell, we are causing the problem much faster than are organising to avoid it.
C&C is constitutional and complete but -true to say - it is also meaningless if we do not propose it at rates that are fast enough to solve the problem. So we must propose it in principle and then argue the rates that make practice effective.
Hoping to survive without a plan is . . . something back managers usually turn down.
3. John A : Point (C)
"A campaign has to offer solutions, it does not have to offer the solution. Even if we adopted C&C as the solution, it is not clear how that would move the climate campaign forward..."
It is necessary for the questioner to define what ‘moving the climate campaign forward’ actually means.
C&C does propose a ‘ghg concentration-target-based-framework’ that takes universal emissions rights for granted [we all, albeit very asymmetrically, do it]subject to that concentration limit.
So C&C makes it possible to measure [or count] and project rates of shrinking and sharing emissions globally at rates that are sufficient to avoid dangerous rates of climate change.
Without this, we are radar-less and rudder-less. We can’t steer or even know where to steer, because we don’t know where we are going are even know where to go. With C&C we can get beyond the guesswork/patchwork of denial/Kyoto/fatalism [its too late].
‘Technology’ is taken for granted with C&C; we have ‘it’ [good and bad] and we have ‘technique’ [how we use it] . . . the issue is why, what's it for, how much . . . what’s the primary goal . . . ?
The fundamental question for all of is - ‘what is the goal?’
The headline answer is safe and stable ghg concentrations and the route is C&C at ‘successful’ rates [fast enough]. Without this we are just guessing, hoping and probably trading insults . . .
Real development that is function of proper understanding and is probably ‘personal’ before it is ‘sustainable’, and ‘together’ [integration] rather that ‘separate’ [segregation] ‘whole’ [consitutional] rather than ‘partial’ etc . . . [admitting the whole doesn't threaten the parts unless they add up to being more than a sustainable whole i.e. emissions/concentrations too-much too-high . . .
In the circumstances movement may be the last thing we want more of and ‘the movement’ could [should] consider the possibility of less or even of having a ‘stillness’ movement [the George Monbiot moment at the US Embassy last December was very touching; - "the enemy is in here" pointing at his won head].
The organisational problem of Kyoto is entrenching the politics of blame where half the world feels it is doing too-much-too-soon in exchange for the rest of the world doing too-little-too-late and the ‘veto’ [If they’re out so am I – the US on China etc]
Success for ‘the movement’ is going beyond the politics of blame to declared ‘amnesty’ with each other globally and acceptance-of/peace-with/submission-to the planet-physics limits.
This is what C&C represents. It doesn’t say ‘no’ to anything except a version of the debate promulgated by those who avoid this discipline and from that position say ‘no’ to C&C without providing anything more helpful than more guesswork/patchwork.
4. Elaine GL: Point (D)
"I'm afraid I have to disagree with most of the posts on this as I feel that formally supporting C&C would be a big mistake. This isn't about the merits of C&C itself, but about keeping the Campaign together and as broad as possible...When you take a position, you always run the risk that you will alienate the people in the group who don't support it. Not everyone in CCC agrees that C&C is the best and only way forward, nor do all the groups whose activists are part of CCC have a position supporting it. A decision to give formal support to C&C risks driving activists away for, to be honest, very little advantage that I can see."
What is the movement trying to do?
If it is simply to create ‘awareness’ the question is, awareness of what?
If it is awareness of what to do, what is that?
If it is ‘more Kyoto’, see above.
More thoughts on C&C